Benchmark: testasd - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<input id="Main_LabelConnectionString" />

Script Preparation code:

var isEmpty = function(el){
  return !$.trim(el.val())
}

Tests:

Function outside
var checkEmpty = function(element){ if (isEmpty(element)) { element.removeClass('active'); } else { element.addClass('active'); } }; $('#Main_LabelConnectionString').on('keyup', function(){ checkEmpty($(this)); });
Code inside
$('#Main_LabelConnectionString').on('keyup', function(){ if (isEmpty($(this))) { element.removeClass('active'); } else { element.addClass('active'); } });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Function outside
Code inside

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what's being tested, compared, and analyzed.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of two different approaches for updating the active class on an HTML input element based on user input. The test case uses a JavaScript function that checks if the input field is empty and updates the active class accordingly.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines a utility function `isEmpty` that takes an element as an argument and returns `true` if the element's value is empty after trimming whitespace.

```javascript
var isEmpty = function(el){\r\n  return !$.trim(el.val()\r\n);
```

This function is used in both test cases.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code defines a simple input field with an ID of `Main_LabelConnectionString`.

```html
<input id="Main_LabelConnectionString" />
```

This input field will be the target for the test cases.

**Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Function outside**: This test case moves the function definition to the global scope, outside of the event listener.
   ```javascript
var checkEmpty = function(element){\r\n  if (isEmpty(element)) {\r\n    element.removeClass('active');\r\n  } else {\r\n    element.addClass('active');\r\n  }\r\n};
$('#Main_LabelConnectionString').on('keyup', function(){\r\n  checkEmpty($(this));\r\n});
```
   The advantage of this approach is that it avoids the overhead of creating a new scope for the event listener.

2. **Code inside**: This test case moves the function definition inside the event listener.
   ```javascript
$('#Main_LabelConnectionString').on('keyup', function(){\r\n  if (isEmpty($(this))) {\r\n    element.removeClass('active');\r\n  } else {\r\n    element.addClass('active');\r\n  }\r\n});
```
   The disadvantage of this approach is that it creates a new scope for the event listener, which can lead to performance issues.

**Benchmark Result**

The latest benchmark result shows two test cases with different numbers of executions per second:

* **Code inside**: 295,938.875 executions per second
* **Function outside**: 307,546.21875 executions per second

Based on this result, the function definition outside the event listener performs slightly better.

**Library**

There is no explicitly mentioned library in the provided JSON data. However, jQuery is used implicitly through the `$` symbol and other functions like `trim`.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

When writing benchmarks like this one, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* **Code size**: Smaller code sizes can result in better performance.
* **Context switching**: Reducing context switching between different scopes and functions can improve performance.
* **Profiling**: Using profiling tools can help identify performance bottlenecks in the code.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to benchmarking JavaScript performance include:

* **V8 Profiler**: A built-in tool for Chrome DevTools that provides detailed information about JavaScript execution time.
* **Benchmarking frameworks**: Frameworks like Benchmark.js or jsperf provide more comprehensive benchmarking capabilities.
* **Microbenchmarking tools**: Tools like Microbenchmark or fast-benchmark are designed specifically for microbenchmarking small code snippets.

Related benchmarks:

testasd (version: 0)

testing

Comparing performance of: Function outside vs Code inside

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Function outside

Code inside

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):